correct correct and if you had done that you would have to then demolish it because you would
have to construct this structure so you can't stucco for a wall it would make no sense is that
right correct chairman i would move everything into evidence i believe that's it um happen to
answer any questions our architect should also be on the call and we plato marinakis uh he's
available for questions as well he should i did not ask to promote him to panelists but he is
available to discuss the plans and respond to questions thank you any questions from the board
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to see some plans and pictures.
You should be able to see the site plan, Mr. Holloman.
This is the property.
I can rotate this.
Can you rotate it, please?
This is the old structure right here, this white building.
This is our site plan.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, I forgot to mention, if this were RM1, as we believe it should be, four units would be an as-of-right development here.
The property is 1496 square feet.
It's a pretty large property.
We would easily make the four units if it were RM1, and I would submit to the board that, based on the permits that I have into evidence, this is 90% either rentals or multifamily.
Mr. Holloman, here's the third and fourth floor plan, and this is the basement walkout
here, first floor and second floor.
What is the trash plan?
So if you see this shaded area is a straight walkway back to the rear yard, there will be rear yard trash storage for all tenants accessible to all tenants.
so if you see this shaded area is a straight walk walkway
There's a ladder here where the, and this is only one, this is a split unit, by the way, Mr. Holloman.
This bedroom in the basement, this is a bi-level as well.
So there's two means of egress for this unit anyway.
But there is another walkout.
What this developer does, he has a ladder leading up into the rear yard for a third way of egress.
And trash storage in the rear for all tenants.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the board?
no anyone else anyone else would like to testify in this case
no hands um yeah go for the hands mr chair no yes we have mary jones um if we could
ms jones just identify yourself you're still on the roof yes good afternoon um board
my name is mary jones i represent council president daryl clark um city hall room 494
um um based upon the reports from the next door neighbor miss brooks who i believe she is on the
call but at any rate um and the the safety concerns associated with building next to her that
But as far as our office knows, we have not have not been properly addressed.
We are opposed to this granting of this variance and also there is not a hardship.
Thank you.
Well, obviously, I, you know, I have the utmost respect for Councilman, Council President
Clark.
I've worked with him for decades.
You know, luckily, RCO is in favor.
um we will absolutely comply with all codes um hell and i has not issued a violation we've
we've taken care as best we can of our neighbor's property uh let me let me enter richard let me
interrupt you if i could miss jones uh would you be i don't mean to put you on the spot but could
you be more specific as to what issues the next door neighbor has as it relates to issues not
being addressed well there was a point where she was um requesting to have her her her wall repaired
but again i was i was assuming i'm not sure where she is or where her attorney is perhaps he had to
go but they would be able to to put in more detail okay again because mr mr demarco pointed out
earlier uh there's a structure they can't do exterior walls because they're not exterior yet
that can only be addressed when the building is demolished if and when it's demolished all right
thank you uh i hear somebody saying we're here yes i would ask i would ask that no one unmute
and speak unless you give a direction here miss brooks is available now to unmute herself and
please. Thank you. Ms. Brooks, please identify yourself with a record first and last name
and we'll swear you in. My name is Clarice Brooks, C-L-A-R-I-C-E-B-R-O-O-K-S.
And your address? 1413 North 7th Street. You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
okay um doing the um first of all i oppose because if the developer before him couldn't do
three units then how can he do four units he has seven units when the black does four units
so why can he do three user units because it will sell he will be able to rent it that's that's
that's not true that no there is not enough single homes when the blacks the housing authority
houses are rent to own. We had a disturbance on our second meeting where all these people just
ganged up on me and was talking bad to me. And then when it came down to the vote, half of those
people couldn't vote. Jaime is not really sure about how many people really voted to oppose
four units. I'm not against three units. I just want my wall fixed because if he builds and leave
If my wall exposed and his buildings are known to leak, then the leakage is going to come into my house.
And his buildings are known to leak
Then the leakage is going to come
Into my house if I have no kind of
No kind of filler
No kind of bricks
Ms. Brooks
When you say your wall
Which wall are we speaking of?
The wall where they demoed
It's an exposed wall now
Yes, it's exposed
Because
Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. DeMarco
I thought the structure was still standing
am i wrong no the the structure has been demolished the picture i showed you that structure
i apologize you showed me a picture chairman ellen i miss brooks has called ellen i multiple
times has not got the results she wants from the department of ellen i and has basically told my
client that he she will oppose him and will not allow him to develop ellen i has seen what mr
what the developer has done to protect her wall and is fully satisfied they've been out multiple
lines. The wall is protected, it's patched, and there's no violations whatsoever. Ms. Brooks wants
something that is not required. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else?
We have Michael, Chair. Hi, thank you so much. This is Michael Froelich,
Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I'm an attorney. Excuse me, excuse me. I guess maybe
when I say this, no one hears me. Please identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
very good i apologize my name is michael frolic the last name is f-r-o-e-h-l-i-c-h
i'm an attorney with community legal services 1410 west erie avenue and do you swear or firm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you thank you please
proceed so i know that we're getting late and we have another list in front of us so i'll try to be
as quick as brief as possible um i represent ms brooks uh who uh who just spoke briefly a moment
ago ms brooks has lived on the block for over 50 years she's the block captain and her row home is
immediately adjacent to the property uh being discussed today i did submit an email to the
board and a letter to the board yesterday um writing much more detail about ms brooks legal
grounds for opposing this variance and and uh there is a lot of uneasiness on this block because
it is a combination of older single-family homes with long-time residents in low density
and new multi-unit construction with higher density. And Ms. Brooks is very concerned that
this new property being built will tower over her home. I did want to correct one thing. Mr. DeMarco
a moment ago said that it is, quote, almost entirely multifamily. He also said that 95%
are rentals or multifamily. Ms. Brooks reports that it is 15 addresses that are single-family,
currently used as single-family, and 15 addresses that are multifamily. For the record,
the single-family homes are 1409, 1413, 1427, 1429, 1435, 1437, 1447, 1449, 1402, 1410, 1418,
1428, 1430, 1432, 1434. Ms. Brooks essentially has three quick arguments as to why she opposes
this variance. First, City Council in 2017 unanimously approved an ordinance rezoning this
block from RM1 to RSA5. Mr. DeMarco noted that if it was RM1, it would allow the applicant to
build four units as of right. That's correct, but City Council unanimously approved a zoning remap
to RSA5. And given this recent action by City Council, a variance would disrupt the clearly
expressed intent of city council. But number two, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship
here. At the RCO meeting in January, in fact, Ms. Casey expressly said that they had not done
pro forma budgeting on this, and she could not or would not respond to the question from Mr.
Ferrant, the RCO convener, who asked for a budget regarding what the expected price was for each
unit. So I think there's no evidence in the record to say that, in fact, four units at lower rents
might generate more income than three units at higher rates. And third and finally, any hardship
that might exist was on the applicant's own making. The applicant was aware of the zoning and the
other conditions of the property when it purchased the property in 2019. In fact, Mr. DeMarco said at
rco meeting quote the owner wants to develop four units the reasoning is as follows the prior owner
could not develop the property for three units to build a new the older property was not usable
to build three units was not feasible so the prior owner sold to my clients
to build three units was not feasible so the prior owner sold to my clients if mr if the applicant
knew that three units was not feasible then the applicant should not have purchased the property
at the price that he paid for it he was aware of this and as he testified or has um his uh council
testified or stated at the rco meeting uh he nevertheless decided to purchase at any rate
uh so for those reasons um ms brooks uh is uh opposes this request for for variance thank you
Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. Chair, I have a brief response to that, because there was a misquotation of the law on zoning.
The attorney just mentioned that because my client knew of the issue with the property, that defeats hardship.
That's a complete misquotation of the law on zoning.
Knowledge has nothing to do with it.
The property suffers from hardship, and my client's motivation for buying it is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Secondly, hardship has already been established by this board. The court already granted a variance.
The only issue before the board is whether to allow a fourth unit. And this, and you know,
Mr. Froelich mentioned some property addresses that are actually completely not only incorrect
when you look at the zoning archive. There's variances for, I couldn't go through each one
as he said them, but 1432 is three units and he mentioned it as single family. That's completely
inaccurate. This is predominantly a multi-family block, so the RSA 5 zoning is completely
incompatible. Thank you. Here we have Denise Whitaker.
Ms. Whitaker. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Denise Whitaker. I'm speaking on the capacity
of Council President Darrell Clark. I work as a constituent service representative
specializing in construction miss whitaker could you spell your full name please sure
it's like denise for the v v e n i s e last name whitaker w h i t a k e r and do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed okay so i just
want to add a few points of what was stated in there again i am the point person for council
president daryl clark's fifth district office when it comes to construction concerns so um just to
kind of add some points this demolition of that structure happened in march 2020 march 2020 is
when the pandemic first arrived the demolition was completed right around the time of the stay
at home was put into place. Ellen and I did not inspect the demolition after it had happened.
Going into Eclipse, it was, Eclipse says it was waived and passed because, again, we were during
a stay-at-home order. So I had submitted a 311 request back then, a year ago, and it's still
pending so in addition when you pull up the demolition codes and requirements uh so
the um where's that where's that code at so section a 305 demolitions should protect adjacent
properties. In addition, the wall right now that is exposed is sand and bricks. That is not an
exterior wall. It is not fire protected. It is required 30 days of any demolition to stucco a
wall. We're beyond 30 days. Ms. Brooks' house has been exposed for over a year of the elements.
So in addition, again, there's nothing to my 311 that Ellen and I has been out there to
inspect it. Also, when it comes to situations as this one, that the violations would fall
on the lot and potentially on this Brooks house. So, you know, that's another concerning reason
right now. So again, I just wanted to end when a demolition happens, if their structure is not
built next to it, there has to be a foundation supporting the house. So we're a year away and
no foundation was put in and there's no bracing
on this Brooks wall.
So again, we're past that 30 days time period
that her entire wall should have been stuck out
or have some kind of bracing support.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential single-family use.
This is a 1,490 square foot lot.
We do not see any unique circumstances that would prevent this property from being used by right.
We recommend that the Board deny the requested variance.
A couple of points to make, Mr. Chairman, on that.
Hello?
We've already found that the RSA 5 zoning is inappropriate for this property.
Not even two years ago, granted a variance for the three units.
So the hardship has already been established to the property.
The only issue is whether we can develop four as opposed to three.
I can call this Casey about how many times L&I has been out to this property.
This is one opposition party.
And I'm surprised the councilman's office is going against their RCO.
This is the process that we have. I mean, why do I not have a letter from the RCO when we won this vote overwhelmingly? Why do I have the council office opposed to this? This is the process that the code has laid out. They are required by the code to present you with a letter regarding their position and the vote.
The vote was overwhelmingly in favor. So I don't understand why construction issues by one party, which have been vetted by L&I, L&I has been out multiple times and is completely satisfied as to what the developer has done.
This is someone that has tried to leverage my client with a construction issue, the issue with zoning, not because you're disappointed that violations haven't been issued and you come to oppose based on that alone.
The opposition is clearly regarding something that is non-zoning related.
Excuse me, Councillor.
Excuse me, Councillor.